Like this: the first year of our lives we are helpless. The first experiences we have are of being hungry and crying out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being (mommy) comes and feeds us. We are wet or dirty and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and changes our diapers. We are frightened or angry or upset and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and comforts us. In other words, mammals are imprinted early with a template for crying out for help and being helped. I've seen kittens do the same thing, do you think they believe in god? No. They just know that when they cry, someone comes. Things that are hatched from eggs and then slither away, like snakes, have no such early experiences. So when you talk about the "instinct" to look beyond ourselves for aid from an omnipotent force, all you are talking about is the residue left from our earliest experiences of dependency.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.
But concrete truths do exist! On this we will forever disagree!
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
Yes, we are helpless, but I cannot reconcile our helplessness with that of a reptile or animal because of our unique and intrinsic dignity. Further, once animals are weened of their mothers, they do not pine for the supernatural. The human soul [for many] yearns for the love of God.
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
I understand, but I am nit-picking because their is a strict definition on what concrete truth is. I am not trying to disrespectfully pigeonhole you into a corner--but I have to make the distinction between our belief systems on the subject of objective reality. I do not think you are a communist. A post-modernist? Yes, simply because of your stances on the value of human life and the lack of unimportance you place on "higher things." That isn't a slap at you--just an observation.
Modern because non-believer before Machiavalli still held a sense of piety, the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. Moderation or temperance went along with this, especially in classical civilization. You would agree then that you philosophy is certainly more post modern?
That's interesting. That may well explain the religious impulse. Maybe the socialist impulse too.
There is, however, something it doesn't explain. Why would a bunch of first century Jewish sectarians think their rabbi rose from the dead, and why wouldn't their enemies simply produce the body?